Literature DB >> 31956537

Comparison of ovarian torsion between pregnant and non-pregnant women at reproductive ages: sonographic and pathological findings.

Jie-Ling Feng1, Ju Zheng1, Ting Lei1, Yong-Jian Xu2, Hui Pang3, Hong-Ning Xie1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Differences in the ultrasonographic features and histological diagnosis of ovarian torsion in pregnant and non-pregnant women have not been defined. A better characterization of these features may help improve the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis. The present study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics, sonographic findings, operative procedures, and histological spectrum of ovarian torsion in pregnant and non-pregnant women.
METHODS: This was a retrospective investigation of female patients at reproductive age with ovarian torsion between January 2010 and May 2017. Each patient received a detailed preoperative ultrasound, and the diagnosis was confirmed by surgery. The clinical characteristics, ultrasonic features, operative procedures, and histological diagnosis of ovarian torsion were retrieved from medical records and were compared in non-pregnant and pregnant patients according to the method of conception.
RESULTS: The overall preoperative ultrasonic detection rate of ovarian torsion was 0.84, which was significantly different between pregnant and non-pregnant women. The presence of ovarian edema and abnormal adnexal positions also differed between pregnant and non-pregnant women. The ultrasonic features were not significantly different between the two pregnant sub-groups. The most common histologic diagnoses in the pregnant group and the non-pregnant group were a normal ovary and teratoma, respectively. The incidence of ovarian neoplasm was significantly lower in pregnant women. There were significant differences in the surgical procedures between the groups based on neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian edema, absence/decreased blood flow in the ovary, and the whirlpool sign were reliable ultrasonic markers for ovarian torsion at reproductive ages. The preoperative ultrasonic detection rate of ovarian torsion was higher in pregnant women, and ovarian edema was more common. The clinical features of ovarian torsion in pregnant women were similar, independent of the method of conception. In women with ovarian torsion, the incidence of non-neoplastic lesions was more frequent in pregnant women, whereas neoplastic lesions were more common in non-pregnant women. Ultrasonography provides useful parameters for the preclinical diagnosis of ovarian torsion to improve patient management. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ovarian torsion; pathology; pregnancy; ultrasonography

Year:  2020        PMID: 31956537      PMCID: PMC6960436          DOI: 10.21037/qims.2019.11.06

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  25 in total

1.  Comparison of adnexal torsion between pregnant and nonpregnant women.

Authors:  Joseph Hasson; Ziv Tsafrir; Foad Azem; Shikma Bar-On; Beni Almog; Roy Mashiach; Daniel Seidman; Joseph B Lessing; Dan Grisaru
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Sonographic diagnosis of ovarian torsion: accuracy and predictive factors.

Authors:  Reuven Mashiach; Nir Melamed; Noa Gilad; Gadi Ben-Shitrit; Israel Meizner
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 3.  Adnexal torsion.

Authors:  Gabriel Oelsner; David Shashar
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.190

4.  Uterine adnexal torsion: sonographic findings.

Authors:  M A Warner; A C Fleischer; S L Edell; G A Thieme; A L Bundy; A B Kurtz; A E James
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Added value of the gray-scale whirlpool sign in the diagnosis of adnexal torsion.

Authors:  D V Valsky; E Esh-Broder; S M Cohen; M Lipschuetz; S Yagel
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Acute abdomen in early pregnancy due to ovarian torsion following successful in vitro fertilization treatment.

Authors:  Hsing-Chun Tsai; Tian-Ni Kuo; Ming-Ting Chung; Mike Y S Lin; Chieh-Yi Kang; Yung-Chieh Tsai
Journal:  Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.705

7.  Adnexal torsion: can the adnexa be saved?

Authors:  A I Bayer; A K Wiskind
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Pearls and pitfalls in diagnosis of ovarian torsion.

Authors:  Hannah C Chang; Shweta Bhatt; Vikram S Dogra
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Differences between adnexal torsion in pregnant and nonpregnant women.

Authors:  Shimon Ginath; Amir Shalev; Ran Keidar; Ram Kerner; Alexander Condrea; Abraham Golan; Ron Sagiv
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.137

10.  Association between pregnancy and adnexal torsion: A population-based, matched case-control study.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Yuk; Ji-Yeon Shin; Won I Park; Dae Woon Kim; Jung Whan Shin; Jung Hun Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

View more
  1 in total

1.  Ovarian thecoma presenting with acute ovarian torsion in pregnancy; report of a rare case.

Authors:  Asieh Maleki; Maedeh Khosravi; Azaadeh Masrouri
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2022-06-26
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.